Bibliographic record
Abstract
If institutionalism today is associated with a single figure, it is with Thorstein Veblen, but the terms “institutional economics” or “institutionalism” to denote an identifiable movement within American economics did not come into common use until the interwar period. Veblen's most substantial and influential writing appeared in the years between 1898 and 1914, and although Veblen was far from uninvolved, it was those influenced by Veblen's ideas, such as Walton Hamilton, Wesley Mitchell, and J. M. Clark, rather than Veblen himself, who played the major role in defining and promoting what became known as institutional economics (Rutherford 2000a, 2000b). “INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS” The very first mention of the term “institutional economics” in print occurs in a footnote in Walton Hamilton's 1916 article dealing with the work of Robert Hoxie (Hamilton 1916a, p. 863, n.5). Hoxie and Hamilton were colleagues for a short time at Chicago, and Hamilton claims that Hoxie called himself an “institutional economist.” Hoxie had been a student of Veblen's at Chicago and was initially much influenced by Veblen's ideas on the effect of the “industrial discipline” on the habits of thought of unionized workers. Hoxie was also a highly regarded investigator of the American labor movement, an influential teacher, and a point of connection between those around Veblen and other students of the labor movement, particularly John R. Commons and some of his students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".